[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Again, what forces are there in a vacuum?

Gravity. And this force is everywhere in the vacuum. Gravity makes cosmic medium to have not zero resistance.

[Kryptid]

Gravity. Gravitational field. The total interaction (the sum) of the gravitational fields of the objects in the Universe.

Gravitational fields in the space between star systems are pretty weak. There are three main things that they would do to photons: red shift them (if the photons are traveling against the field), blue shift them (if they are traveling into the field) or deflect them (if they are traveling in any direction perpendicular to the source). Those gravitational fields might modify the photon energy to some extent, but they won't absorb the photons. They are in no way a hindrance to photons traveling through space (unless they travel into black holes or whatever).

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

First of all, whether a vacuum is a "medium" is debatable. Secondly, we do know of mediums with zero resistance (superfluid helium, for example).

Are you 100% sure that superfluid helium have zero resistance, but not any negligible (and/or disregarded) resistance value, but still not absolutely zero resistance?

[Kryptid]

Are you 100% sure that superfluid helium have zero resistance, but not any negligible (and/or disregarded) resistance value, but still not absolutely zero resistance?

Given that experiments can't measure arbitrarily small values, it can't be ruled out completely. I am not aware of any measurements of such resistance, however.

[Bored chemist]

Again, what forces are there in a vacuum?

Gravity. And this force is everywhere in the vacuum. Gravity makes cosmic medium to have not zero resistance.

On average there is as much stuff in front pulling forwards as there is stuff behind you pulling back.
So, the net effect is zero.

Overcoming the distance without spending energy (that is, with zero energy expenses) is impossible a priori.

or, we can look at Newton's first law which says "an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a net external force. ".

Are you saying Newton was wrong about that?

Probably Newton did not take into account all possible reaction forces (and/or the way that forces interact). Perhaps some negligible, but still not zero forces, which he neglected/disregarded.

So, you don't understand that it's a general principle then...?

[Bored chemist]

First of all, whether a vacuum is a "medium" is debatable. Secondly, we do know of mediums with zero resistance (superfluid helium, for example).

Are you 100% sure that superfluid helium have zero resistance, but not any negligible (and/or disregarded) resistance value, but still not absolutely zero resistance?

Real science say "we are not absolutely sure"
But you say

The existence of a medium with absolutely zero resistance is impossible, a priori impossible.

So, we know you are not doing science.
Why are you here on this forum?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Gravitational fields in the space between star systems are pretty weak. There are three main things that they would do to photons: red shift them (if the photons are traveling against the field), blue shift them (if they are traveling into the field) or deflect them (if they are traveling in any direction perpendicular to the source). Those gravitational fields might modify the photon energy to some extent, but they won't absorb the photons. They are in no way a hindrance to photons traveling through space (unless they travel into black holes or whatever).

You forgot dark matter and dark energy for a complete set of the official, if I may say so, theory of the structure of the Universe.Thanks for the conversation. All the best. Bye.

[Kryptid]

You forgot dark matter and dark energy for a complete set of the official

No, I didn't. Any gravity produced by dark matter or dark energy (if it even produces gravity) would affect photons just as I described. The one and only place that a photon can be red shifted out of existence due to gravity is a black hole.

Thanks for the conversation. All the best. Bye.

I hope you're planning on coming back and finishing this conversation later.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Real science say "we are not absolutely sure"
But you say
Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on Today at 20:23:45
The existence of a medium with absolutely zero resistance is impossible, a priori impossible.
So, we know you are not doing science.
Why are you here on this forum?

Real science has an axiomatic foundation. Science is impossible without one hundred percent true or false, a prioral, knowledge (assertions, statements).
I'm going to sleep. Bye.

[Kryptid]

Science is impossible without one hundred percent true or false, a prioral, knowledge (assertions, statements).

Please provide a citation from a reputable source to back this statement up. Last time I checked, science is about evidence, not proof.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Have nothing to add. Topic closed. Thanks for participating in the discussion.

[Bored chemist]

Have nothing to add. Topic closed. Thanks for participating in the discussion.

You didn't take part in a discussion. You just soapboxed a bit and looked foolish.

[Kryptid]

Have nothing to add. Topic closed. Thanks for participating in the discussion.

Then I don't want to see you promoting your model here any longer. This is a discussion board. Take a look at the rules: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.

You have been on the verge of doing exactly this for many of the threads you have started. You make a starting post and then give few if any replies when other members try to correct your misunderstandings. Well, I'm not letting you do that any longer. From now on, if you decide to make any more threads about your model, you will discuss it and reply to objections against it. If you do not, this will be interpreted as "evangelising your own pet theory", the thread will subsequently be locked and you will be given a warning about it. If you do this too much, you will be seen as a spammer and be subject to the appropriate moderator action.

So either keep it a discussion or don't talk about it at all. This is not the place for you to advertise.

[CrazyScientist]

From now on, if you decide to make any more threads about your model, you will discuss it and reply to objections against it. If you do not, this will be interpreted as "evangelising your own pet theory", the thread will subsequently be locked and you will be given a warning about it. If you do this too much, you will be seen as a spammer and be subject to the appropriate moderator action.

I wish I would have such opportunity, before my thread was closed without any warning by Halc :*(

[Origin]

From now on, if you decide to make any more threads about your model, you will discuss it and reply to objections against it. If you do not, this will be interpreted as "evangelising your own pet theory", the thread will subsequently be locked and you will be given a warning about it. If you do this too much, you will be seen as a spammer and be subject to the appropriate moderator action.

I wish I would have such opportunity, before my thread was closed without any warning by Halc :*(

Please don't hijack threads, it is against the rules and a distraction.

[CrazyScientist]

From now on, if you decide to make any more threads about your model, you will discuss it and reply to objections against it. If you do not, this will be interpreted as "evangelising your own pet theory", the thread will subsequently be locked and you will be given a warning about it. If you do this too much, you will be seen as a spammer and be subject to the appropriate moderator action.

I wish I would have such opportunity, before my thread was closed without any warning by Halc :*(

Please don't hijack threads, it is against the rules and a distraction.

Sorry! I will try not to.Although I might sometimes respond to somone in a thread other than my own. On the other hand even I saw, that it went too far in the already closed thread about gravity  and intended to start a new thread to further discuss this subject there - what I did...  Compared to my posts from there, my short reply to Kryptid doesn't actually look like an attempt of hijacking someone's else thread. If you wouldn't response to it, I probably wouldn't post nothing more in here

[Bored chemist]

my thread was closed without any warning

You were warned when you signed up.

[CrazyScientist]

my thread was closed without any warning

You were warned when you signed up.

Sure, but I don't understand why in this case I was treated differently than others - in the negative sense. If I would have some warning I would at least try to do something to prevent the closure of my thread. Am I really the worst one among all other users of this forum? In the difference to others, I try at least to support my controversial ideas with scientifically valid sources...

I hope that Origin won't treat this response as another of my attempts to hijack this thread...

[Kryptid]

Sure, but I don't understand why in this case I was treated differently than others

Different moderators may have different approaches. I'm not even sure which thread you are talking about.

[CrazyScientist]

Sure, but I don't understand why in this case I was treated differently than others

Different moderators may have different approaches. I'm not even sure which thread you are talking about.

This one:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82070.200

I admit, that I got slighly irritated during my discussion with Origin, since I got quite tired of endlessly repeating things, that should be quite obvious to any one, who deals with theoretical physics in his everyday life. Still I don't think that I went too far in my responses to him. And if so, after a simple warning I would probably try to be slightly nicer towards him - it's not that I have some grudge against him and I would admit of being wrong if his objections would be actually valid (but they weren't)...